Most any sort of art that pushed against moral boundaries will stir negative sentiment- and we NEED to validly question wether or not something is in fact art- or crosses the line to something else. This is ESPECIALLY true when dealing with exploitation- and even more so true with a film like “Cuties” which uses children and contains elements of sexuality.
That said- I very strongly doubt that an indictment against the film can or will be won, even if a lower court rules against the film, a higher court will almost certainly not. A key question in wether or not it is in fact pornographic is wether or not it is found to have artistic, cultural, political, literary, or scientific value. Given that the film has won international awards and acclaim from the artistic community, and its creators uphold, as well as many others, that the film carries a message against sexualization of children- I don’t know that it will be so easy to prove that the film does not hold up to the protections offered to art.
I must be abundantly clear: one may PERSONALLY feel that any art is lewd- there are those who prefer the penis of David or even his bare bottom be censored, and art has been called lees for far less than that even- but we allow for graphic violence, sex, and nudity in things as “artistic” as a summer block buster film without labeling them pornographic. So wether one feels “Cuties” is or is not lewd- the law and the protections of freedom of expression don’t hinge solely upon what one person finds to be offensive-
I want to be extra clear on that last point. Criminalizing artistic expression is a dangerous game. Courts are historically very careful about it- even in the case of copyright IP there are exceptions to allow artistic expression. Many pieces of art are shocking, potentially offensive, they push the boundaries and question or force us to question ourselves and society or the world. If an artist has to constantly wonder wether or not their next work will land them in prison, if those who show art and sell art face legal action if they pick the “wrong” art to show- everyone, especially those large avenues where a creators work may reach the public- is incentivized to “play it safe” and we lose art that challenges us.
Obviously that does not mean we should give free reign to anything labeled as art to do as it pleases. However, we do have to be mindful that any legal decree creates precedent. If you go on YouTube- you will find videos of children dancing, often in tight or revealing clothing, often in a fashion that is somewhat adult. So then- what is next after this? Must YouTube pull and forbid any such videos? Does YouTube and the parent or even the child (posting video of themselves dancing) face criminal charges? What of the vacation video of your kids in their swim suits? What of your 10yo going gymnastics in a unitard or your 15yo doing cheer?
It’s a slippery slope because you and I can apply “common sense” to whatever we see and say “well obviously this is just...” but you mustn’t forget that 1. Common sense isn’t common. What is or isn’t sexual is perspective. In Iran- your video of your 15yo daughter in overalls is inappropriate because her face and hair is showing no? That’s an extreme- but it shows the point. 2. The law doesn’t have common sense so much. It has what is written, the intent, and the precedent.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again- I don’t like the idea of this film. I don’t want to see it. I don’t think that the marketing was handled well or respectfully for the weight of the subject matter. I can’t judge the film as I haven’t seen it and won’t- but I don’t like the whole deal. I think they could have made art that was powerful and shocking that also wasn’t something that could be used as fapping material for the mentally ill and sick.
BUT- to convince me that this film should legally be pornography- and to convince any court worth it’s salt for that matter, you need to discredit all the awards and acclaim this film has garnered from international artists and critics. You need to show that things were done explicitly for pornographic reasons and not for artistic reasons- and do consider that films like “I spit on your grave” are protected as art and not pornography, even if they have and still do carry controversy. So.... it’s a slippery slope. We have to be careful not to be foolish or emotional with the law. The law doesn’t adapt and contextualize as quickly as we do. What is done here applies across the board in theory. I would say this ain’t my kind of art- but because I don’t understand it or agree with it isn’t a valid reason to revoke protections of expression.
just gonna add onto something you said or i guess, answer a question you offered.
" Does YouTube and the parent or even the child (posting video of themselves dancing) face criminal charges?"
at least in oklahoma, the person who distributed the content would be charged. So if the child uploaded the video themselves they would potentially face a charge of distribution of child pornography. If the parent did they most definitely would, this all assuming that video in question is found to be pornographic.
there's a whole hypothetical scenario based on how the laws are written where, if a 17 year old sends a picture of their genitals to another 17 year old both could potentially face jail time, one for possessing child pornography and one for distributing it. The act of sending the photograph to another causes the image to go from a legal non-sexual picture of themselves for potentially "is there something wrong with my bits" purposes to being defined as sexual from being a nude sent.
Not properly in one FS comment
And we'd probably disagree on some of the definitions anyway
.
But oversimplified:
Left: more compassionate
Right: more focused on competence
.
Authoritarian: top-down leadership makes the rules
Libertarian: emphasis on personal rights and freedoms - "sovereign individual"
The biggest level of criticism I've seen about Cuties came from the right, not the left
" Does YouTube and the parent or even the child (posting video of themselves dancing) face criminal charges?"
at least in oklahoma, the person who distributed the content would be charged. So if the child uploaded the video themselves they would potentially face a charge of distribution of child pornography. If the parent did they most definitely would, this all assuming that video in question is found to be pornographic.
there's a whole hypothetical scenario based on how the laws are written where, if a 17 year old sends a picture of their genitals to another 17 year old both could potentially face jail time, one for possessing child pornography and one for distributing it. The act of sending the photograph to another causes the image to go from a legal non-sexual picture of themselves for potentially "is there something wrong with my bits" purposes to being defined as sexual from being a nude sent.
And we'd probably disagree on some of the definitions anyway
.
But oversimplified:
Left: more compassionate
Right: more focused on competence
.
Authoritarian: top-down leadership makes the rules
Libertarian: emphasis on personal rights and freedoms - "sovereign individual"